sexism of evolution

[chiefMOJOrisin]

oh jeez..... i just saw jonathon here........... not even worth the aggrivation.

[MelT]

Dr Gitt is not a genetics expert, anthropologist, geologist, or anything else relevant to his claims. He is just one researcher in computer information theory, not the world's expert on it who everyone looks to on the subject. In fact, strangely, other scientists laugh at his work, so he's not exactly world-renowned either. He hasn't written vast sheaves of papers that have all won awards as claimed, but he got one award for work unrelated to his creationist theories.

QUOTE: Critics claim Gitt's work has been rejected by the scientific community as pseudomathematics. Rich Baldwin criticizes Gitt's work in an article entitled Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt. [1] Gitt "describes his principles as "empirical." Baldwin objects that the data is not provided to back this up[2] and that Gitt proposes fourteen 'theorems,' yet fails to demonstrate them. [3]. Tom Schneider critiques Gitt's Information Theorems claiming errors.

Werner Gitt is a German creationist. He is an computer scientist and has been director of a department at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig, an institution which is responsible, among other things, for units and measurements. Very often he is wrongly claimed by German creationists to have been the director of the whole institution, giving him more apparent credibility. In fact this institution is led by a "president", not a "director"

The below is a short excerpt from the site and a meeting with Gitt. I think you'd better read this one Jonathon, your friend seems to disagree with you....

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/report_on_the_2_4.html

QUOTE FROM AN AUDIENCE MEMBER AT A GITT LECTURE:
"...He then started gushing about how all it would take to refute his ideas is for a scientist to produce a single natural mechanism that could increase the information content of the genome. That’s it — just one! But they couldn’t do it. He argued that duplicating a gene does not produce new information. It’s a jaw-dropping reply, since it simply ignores the part where the duplicate gene subsequently mutates.

We went on for several minutes. The highlight for me was when, in response to an argument he made about mutating computer programs, he actually said I made a good point. I felt my mission had been accomplished. I had made it clear that there are answers to his arguments, and everyone had a chance to see that there were people who were unintimidated by them. I couldn’t resist one parting shot. “In your reply to the previous gentleman you said that your ideas about information are well-received by other scientists. But even you would have to agree that evolution is the dominant paradigm among scientists. Since you made it clear that your ideas absolutely rule out the possibility of evolution, I don’t think it’s true that scientists agree with you here.”

At this point something amazing happened. Gitt replied that there was no contradiction here because you could accept both God and evolution. I agree completely with that sentiment, but that was definitely not the party line at this conference...."

I pressed on. “But we’re not talking about God and evolution. We’re talking about accepting your particular theories about information on the one hand and evolution on the other. You said explicitly that was impossible. So you were being disingenuous when you told the other fellow that scientists accept your ideas.” Gitt shrugged and looked down at the floor. He actually looked abashed!..."

"Gitt replied that there was no contradiction here because you could accept both God and evolution...". Jonathon? Any thoughts? Your saviour Gitt seems to think that evolution and god aren't mutually exclusive? If his word on the subject is so true and binding to us all, as you keep saying, then you also have to accept his statement here too. He's not done you a lot of favours, has he?

<DT>Information Theory and Creationism <DD>Both young-earth and intelligent-design creationists often claim that evolution is impossible because of various claims about information such as mutation and natural selection "cannot create information." This article provides a brief background on Information Theory and explains how Creationists such as Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner misuse one of the greatest contributions of the 20th Century.

<DT>Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information: A reply to Answers in Genesis regarding the Apo AI Milano mutation <DD>A common claim by those who deny evolution is that there is no way to evolve an increase in information. The Apo-AIM mutation is a counter example which shows a beneficial mutation with a new function. Answers in Genesis has disputed that this mutation is an increase in information claiming that specificity has been lost. This document shows why Answers in Genesis is wrong.</DD>

Also, QUOTES, with references and research available if required:

Here Gitt falls into a standard misunderstanding Information Is Not Entropy, Information Is Not Uncertainty! That is, he forgets to subtract.

Theorem 1: The statistical information content of a chain of symbols is a quantitative concept. It is given in bits (binary digits).

This is a definition, not a theorem. Gitt does not prove it.

Theorem 2: According to Shannon's theory, a disturbed signal generally contains more information than an undisturbed signal, because, in comparison with the undisturbed transmission, it originates from a larger quantity of possible alternatives.

This is incorrect. Gitt has fully fallen into the pitfall (see above) and is stuck. He has confused H<SUB>before</SUB> with information. From now on he is doomed. In this case, he directly contradicts Shannon's own theorem and writings! That is, Shannon used the fact that a disturbance decreases the information to prove his theorem! See Shannon1948 Part II, Section 11, PART II: THE DISCRETE CHANNEL WITH NOISE 11. REPRESENTATION OF A NOISY DISCRETE CHANNEL. Page 21, Figure 8.

Since Gitt has gotten Shannon backwards, his writing is completely scrambled and confused.

Theorem 3: Since Shannon's definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning.

This is a claim, not a theorem. It is based on 'meaning', an undefined term.

Theorem 5: The assignment of the symbol set is based on convention and constitutes a mental process.

Note that Gitt uses the word 'theorem' but does not give his axioms nor does he prove his theorems using axioms.

Theorem 4: A code is an absolutely necessary condition for the representation of information.

and Theorem 8:

Only those structures that are based on a code can represent information (because of Theorem 4). This is a necessary, but still inadequate, condition for the existence of information.

are two "theorems" that depend on each other! It's a nice case of circular (non)reasoning.




Yerse.....



MelT

[MelT]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

oh jeez..... i just saw jonathon here........... not even worth the aggrivation.

LOL! His fame as an open-minded, logical thinker has spread far and wide. I for one am glad that he's doing this, the more HE can spread the word about this evasive claptrap the easier it is for us...

As creationists are famed for taking quotes out of context or from old or discredited work, read the following to combat their devious ways:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/project.html

MelT

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by MelT

I think you're right, nobody can be this daft...go on J, own up! Yer havin' a larf, aren't you?

MelT

I keep expecting Ashton Kutcher to run out from behind a curtain, laughing at me.

[Medicine Al]

Somewhere in Seattle, a squirrel has lost his nuts
He wants them back immediately, with no ifs, ands, or buts!
He's asking god to bring them to his hole up in the tree
So he can sit there all day long and throw his nuts at me...

[jonathan]

I'm not even going to bother. You people behave like a bunch of hecklers. I believe anyone comparing the arguments and assertions who is reasonable will see that Answers in genesis defends thier claims from attackers, including what has been posted ,most surely slandering answers in genesis and a man who's theory has not been proven false. No has ever proven it wrong..And he is exceptionally qualified.

When people do things like this, this is little childish nonseense. This is something a ten year old would do. Why should I even bother talking to you. I'l ltell you that your attitude will make any person with a bit of wisdom to realize you are a immature and foolish, and will surely look twice at your assertions about anything. I proven what I wanted to prove, even if I didn't convince anyone else, I'm sure there's some semi-sensible people out there somewhere.

Werner Gitts theory is a working theory, that is testable, in the real world, unlike evolution.

This is childish and wrong:

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by jonathan

I'm not even going to bother. You people behave like a bunch of hecklers. I believe anyone comparing the arguments and assertions who is reasonable will see that Answers in genesis defends thier claims from attackers, including what has been posted ,most surely slandering answers in genesis and a man who's theory has not been proven false. No has ever proven it wrong..And he is exceptionally qualified.

When people do things like this, this is little childish nonseense. This is something a ten year old would do. Why should I even bother talking to you. I'l ltell you that your attitude will make any person with a bit of wisdom to realize you are a immature and foolish, and will surely look twice at your assertions about anything. I proven what I wanted to prove, even if I didn't convince anyone else, I'm sure there's some semi-sensible people out there somewhere.

Werner Gitts theory is a working theory, that is testable, in the real world, unlike evolution.

This is childish and wrong:

What a hateful and judgmental comment for somebody supposed following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You're religiously zealotry and moral egomania would make him proud.

[jonathan]

Here is a rebuke to Tom Schneider :

http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp

And here is a rebuke to richard dawkins:

http://trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp


And noone has any right to slander Dr. Gitt's credentials :

Who is Werner Gitt?

Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt was born in Raineck, East Prussia (Germany), on
22nd of February 1937. In 1963 he enrolled at the Technical University of
Hanover and in 1968 he completed his studies as Diplom-Ingenieur.
Thereafter he worked as assistant in the Institute of Control Technology
at the Technical University of Aachen. Following two years of research
work, he received his doctorate in Engineering summa cum laude in 1971
together with the prestigious ‘Borchers Medal’ of the Technical University
of Aachen. In the same year Werner Gitt started his career at the Federal
Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt Braunschweig,‘PTB’), Brunswick. In 1978 he was
promoted to a Director and Professor at the PTB. From 1971 to 2002 he
was the Head of ‘Information Technology’.

He has written numerous scientific papers in the field of information
science, as well as many others concerned with mathematics and control
technology. He has held lectures on related topics at numerous
universities at home and abroad. Since 1984 he has been a regular guest
lecturer at the State Independent Theological University of Basle,
Switzerland, on the subject of ‘The Bible and Science’. He has spoken on
the topic ‘Faith and Science’ in all five continents and in many different
countries (e. g. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czech, France, Hungary,
Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Lithuania, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway,
Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Russia, South Africa, Sweden,
Switzerland, USA, White Russia). Most of these talks were strongly
evangelistic. He married his wife Marion in 1966; Carsten was born in
September 1969, and Rona in April 1969.

From werner gitts website

QUOTE FROM AN AUDIENCE MEMBER AT A GITT LECTURE:
"...He then started gushing about how all it would take to refute his ideas is for a scientist to produce a single natural mechanism that could increase the information content of the genome. That’s it — just one! But they couldn’t do it. He argued that duplicating a gene does not produce new information. It’s a jaw-dropping reply, since it simply ignores the part where the duplicate gene subsequently mutates.

We went on for several minutes. The highlight for me was when, in response to an argument he made about mutating computer programs, he actually said I made a good point. I felt my mission had been accomplished. I had made it clear that there are answers to his arguments, and everyone had a chance to see that there were people who were unintimidated by them. I couldn’t resist one parting shot. “In your reply to the previous gentleman you said that your ideas about information are well-received by other scientists. But even you would have to agree that evolution is the dominant paradigm among scientists. Since you made it clear that your ideas absolutely rule out the possibility of evolution, I don’t think it’s true that scientists agree with you here.”

At this point something amazing happened. Gitt replied that there was no contradiction here because you could accept both God and evolution. I agree completely with that sentiment, but that was definitely not the party line at this conference...."

I pressed on. “But we’re not talking about God and evolution. We’re talking about accepting your particular theories about information on the one hand and evolution on the other. You said explicitly that was impossible. So you were being disingenuous when you told the other fellow that scientists accept your ideas.” Gitt shrugged and looked down at the floor. He actually looked abashed!..."

"Gitt replied that there was no contradiction here because you could accept both God and evolution...". Jonathon? Any thoughts? Your saviour Gitt seems to think that evolution and god aren't mutually exclusive? If his word on the subject is so true and binding to us all, as you keep saying, then you also have to accept his statement here too. He's not done you a lot of favours, has he?

I cannot tell exactly what Werner Gitt is trying to say, but he is an biblical creationist who is very much against theistic evolution. My guess is if these are the words that really ha[ppened, then Gitt is just way over her head and understands how theistic evolutionsits (who are many) might not see a contradiction between his ideas and evolution, but he surely does.

Here is in a fact an article written by him against theistic evolution. I probably don't agree with him on everything biblically, but he does not beleive in evolution one bit.

www.werner-gitt.de/down/eng/ENG_evolution.pdf

<table style="border-top-width: 0px;" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr title="Post 1861019" valign="top"><td class="alt2"><dt>Apolipoprotein AI Mutations and Information: A reply to Answers in Genesis regarding the Apo AI Milano mutation </dt><dd>A common claim by those who deny evolution is that there is no way to evolve an increase in information. The Apo-AIM mutation is a counter example which shows a beneficial mutation with a new function. Answers in Genesis has disputed that this mutation is an increase in information claiming that specificity has been lost. This document shows why Answers in Genesis is wrong.</dd></td></tr></tbody></table>

These people are completely wrong, and answers in genesis has proven them wrong.

A-I Milano mutation—evidence for evolution?

21 February 2003
This week’s selected feedback from J.R. is about another claimed beneficial mutation, since many people have an idea that this would disprove creation. Despite the rule against URLs in feedbacks, in this case it was unavoidable, and we thought that Dr Don Batten’s Biblical and scientific perspective would be helpful. Once again, the key is that evolution requires information-increasing mutations, while even the rare beneficial ones do not help evolution because they are losses of information. J.R. responded to the original answer with appreciation, showing that Dr Batten’s explanation was helpful in clearing up this common misunderstanding.
<hr class="main">

I really hope AIG does an article or report on this. So far, I haven’t found a creationist group that will report anything on this complex. Seeing as how AiG reported on the fruit fly issue, with the evolutionists claiming this A-I Milano complex as vastly more important evidence than the fruit fly stuff, I hope to see an AIG report soon.
Here are two URLs:
Site #1) The Milano Mutation: A Rare Protein Mutation Offers New Hope for Heart Disease Patients
Site #2) ‘Defective’ but beneficial gene may bring about novel ways to clear arterial plaque buildup. I have checked these, and they work as of Feb 04, 2003.
Thanks for the good communication.
In Christ,
J.R.

<hr class="main"> It would appear that the questioner is under the mistaken impression that beneficial mutations are a problem for creationists. Some creationists make this unfortunate error. The mutations Q&A section of our Web site clearly teaches that the issue is not whether the mutation is beneficial but if it adds new genetic information (specified complexity). So it would have been clear that the A-I Milano mutation is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution.
What has happened? One amino acid has been replaced with a cysteine residue in a protein that normally assembles high density lipoproteins (HDLs), which are involved in removing ‘bad’ cholesterol from arteries. The mutant form of the protein is less effective at what it is supposed to do, but it does act as an antioxidant, which seems to prevent atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries). In fact, because of the added -SH on the cysteine, 70% of the proteins manufactured bind together in pairs (called dimers), restricting their usefulness. The 30% remaining do the job as an antioxidant. Because the protein is cleverly designed to target ‘hot spots’ in arteries and this targeting is preserved in the mutant form, the antioxidant activity is delivered to the same sites as the cholesterol-transporting HDLs. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity (for lipids) does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. The specificity already existed in the wild-type A-I protein before the mutation occurred.
Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.
Note that quantifying the amount of information is not as easy as just counting the number of functions or even the number of base pairs (‘letters’) in a gene. This is simplistic reasoning. It is firstly, but not only, a question of specificity. For example, if I said, ‘Fix the Porsche,’ this conveys more information than ‘Fix the automobile,’ although the latter has more letters. If I said, ‘Fix the car and the truck,’ we now have two ‘functions’ in this sentence, but does it contain more information than ‘Fix the Porsche’? We are now comparing a command with two ‘functions,’ but both of low specificity, with a command with one function and high specificity. In this case deciding which has the most information is not simple. This illustrates the importance of context and purpose (teleology). For example, if there were only one car to fix, a Porsche, ‘Fix the automobile’ would carry as much information as ‘Fix the Porsche.’ But if there were dozens of possible cars or trucks to fix, ‘Fix the Porsche’ would contain much more useful information than ‘Fix the car and truck.’ Dr Werner Gitt explores these issues in detail in his incisive In the Beginning Was Information.
For more information on defining information mathematically, see How is information content measured? (somewhat technical). However, mathematical definitions of information only work in certain contexts (e.g. substrate specificity of enzymes).
It would also be useful to study the article Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information? and the explanations about information content accompanied by Dr Lee Spetner's graphs of the activity of the enzyme ribitol dehydrogenase. The Milano mutation seems to parallel the mutant enzyme, with a lower peak and broader spectrum, i.e. towards lower specificity hence lower information.
Of course it remains to be seen if this mutation is completely beneficial. The fact that the persons with it are unable to produce normal levels of HDLs, which are known to perform a valuable role in moving ‘bad’ cholesterol, suggests that there could be a health down side to this mutation (as there is with sickle-cell anemia).
Apparently this mutation has only been seen in heterozygotes. That is, all those who have the mutation have a normal gene pairing the mutant gene. The homozygous state (both genes the same) could be lethal. This would then parallel sickle-cell anemia, which evolutionists often put up as an example of evolution in action. Here the heterozygote has an advantage, but the homozygote is lethal. This cannot be an example of upward evolutionary progression since the mutant form can never take over the population; it will always be limited to a small percentage of individuals in the population.
However, with the A-I Milano mutation, there are not yet many people with the mutation, so the chances of two people with the mutation marrying and having children so that a homozygote could be produced (1 in 4 of the children) would be very low—it probably has not happened yet. The ‘jury remains out’ on whether a homozygote would be viable.*
Needless to say, if someone follows a healthy lifestyle, eats the right things (something like the food pyramid as recently revised by Harvard Medical School, although this could be improved further), exercises, maintains a healthy weight and does not abuse their body by smoking, the A-I Milano mutation will likely be of no use. Epidemiological studies show that heart disease can probably be avoided.
Dr Don Batten
For the original paper, see: Bielicki, J.K., Oda, M.N., Apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) and apolipoprotein A-I(Paris) exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type apolipoprotein A-I, Biochemistry 41(6):2089-96, 2002.
Note: the original posting of this response was modified following interaction with a Dr Steven Pirie-Shepherd, an evolutionist. We started out publishing Dr Pirie-Shepherd’s objections with Dr Batten’s responses, but he was clearly not happy with our publishing his letters after we had demonstrated the flaws in them; he kept coming back for more, continually changing his point of contention. If we had persisted with publishing this interaction as the back-and-forth continued it would have become quite tedious to follow. Also, it became clear that Dr Pirie-Shepherd was willing to concede nothing and was using the opportunity merely to develop a propaganda piece to be published on a web site given to opposing Biblical Creation. Consequently, our answer was modified in response to Pirie-Shepherd’s claims, but his words were not included.
Dr Pirie-Shepherd has contributed his name to ‘Project Steve’ of the National Center for Science Education, an organization founded and still run by secular humanists (atheists)—NOT to promote real science such as physics, chemistry and experimental biology, but solely to oppose Biblical Creation and promote evolution from goo-to-you-via-the-zoo (see How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organizations?).
Note

*Mice have been created by genetic engineering to have a human A-I Milano mutant allele paired with a mouse gene that has been inactivated. Such mice appear to be viable, which suggests that a homozygote human could be viable. See Guido Franceschini, G. et al., Increased cholesterol efflux potential of sera from ApoA-IMilano carriers and transgenic mice, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 19:1257–1262, 1999. Return to text.

[MelT]

JONATHON: And noone has any right to slander Dr. Gitt's credentials :
Jonathon: He's one fo the foremost scientists in the world.

LOL! Ohhhh puh-lease! This is a perfect example of your gullibility. He's a computer information 'scientist' with a theory and nothing more. Nothing you've posted about his credentials shows that he knows anything more than his biased views on math's and creationism. Using his work on creationism to prove that he's the world's foremost anything is a joke. He was a head of department in a small university, and that makes him the world's most foremost scientist? What planet are you on? So he's got books out - David Icke has, it doesn't make him either right or reliable.

He's said that he thinks god and evolution are not mutually exclusive and you weedle your way around it - in exactly the same way that every time anybody presents you with opposing evidence you say they don't know what they're talking about and its all guess work. Weak.

But please, do go on...


MelT

[chiefMOJOrisin]

Originally Posted by jonathan

When people do things like this, this is little childish nonseense. This is something a ten year old would do. Why should I even bother talking to you. I'l ltell you that your attitude will make any person with a bit of wisdom to realize you are a immature and foolish, and will surely look twice at your assertions about anything. I proven what I wanted to prove, even if I didn't convince anyone else, I'm sure there's some semi-sensible people out there somewhere.

you didnt convince anyone because your arguements were false.

[Rasta_Man]

It would be so much easier if Jonathan actually understood what fallacious logic was.

I've pointed some on the particular logical fallacies out to him in the past, but he just keeps reusing the exact same ones.

Maybe something is up.

[chiefMOJOrisin]

http://members.shaw.ca/amitdeshwar/creationism.html

this link takes down creationists arguments against evolution. very well in fact. while reading that link...i could picture jonathon. the site is almost talking to him.... might as well be

[ReformMaryJaneLaws]

This thread has run it's course. Disagree with people but do so without trying to belittle them. The City is not the place for that. If needed, put jonathan on your ignore list.